- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 preferred by Anil Kumar Shahi, Ghanshyam Singh, Davendra Singh and Raj Narain Lal, petitioners herein, inter alia praying for the following reliefs: (a) initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors for their willful disobedience and uphold the majesty of this Hon'ble Court; and/or (b) direct the respondents to disclose the marks obtained by the petitioner as well as cut-off marks beyond which the candidates were called for interview; and/or (c) quash order dated 7. 4. 2006 passed by the respondent No. 2 which is in contravention of the order dated 7. 3. 2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court; and/or (d) direct the respondents that if the candidates are found to have obtained equal to or more than cut-off marks, then to call the candidates for interview and recommend the candidates; and/or (e) direct the respondents/u. P. Government that thereafter to appoint the candidates in order of their post of preference as was submitted by the candidates during the mains examination; and/or (f) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under: the petitioners and other candidates had appeared in the preliminary and main examinations for the year 1997 conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission [`the UPPSC'] for the posts of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys and Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institutes along with other posts in the State of U. P. and a combined State/upper Subordinate Services. A group of candidates appearing for various posts for the years 1996 and 1997 filed writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court in the case of Tulsi Ram and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. [writ Petition No. 40849 of 1977] while dealing with the case of 1996 batch was pleased to decide the issue with regard to the eligibility criteria. Aggrieved thereby, a number of special leave petitions were preferred by the candidates before this Court. The writ petition filed by the petitioners for the posts of Principals and Senior Lecturers was dismissed by the High Court with a short order which reads as under: the facts of the case are covered by the judgment of this Court in Tulsi Ram and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 40849 of 1997 decided on 13. 5. 98. The writ petition is disposed of on same condition and direction as in aforesaid judgment. The judgment in Tulsi Ram's case (supra) was challenged before this Court in a group of matters. By an order made on 10. 01. 2001 in Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962/1999, Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 2000 filed by the present petitioners, was delinked from the said group of matters.
(3.) IN Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962/1999, titled Mohd. Altaf and Ors. v. Public Service Commission and Anr. this Court decided the question of law that was raised in the aforesaid case of Tulsi Ram. The controversy in Tulsi Ram`s case centered round the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for holding the posts. The eligibility criteria as advertised/notified read as under: (3) For the Post of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys/girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institute - (1) Post Graduate degree from a recognised university or any degree equivalent thereto recognised by the Government. (2) L. T. Diploma from Education Department of U. P. or B. T. or B. Ed. or any other degree of University equivalent thereto. (3) At least three years' of teaching experience as head of any Senior Secondary or normal School or three years experience of or normal School or three years experience of teaching Intermediate or higher classes or in C. T. or L. T. Training Post Graduate College as lecturer. It was the case of the petitioners before the High Court that experience contemplated by the above-said eligibility criteria No. 3 was not restricted to teaching in Government schools, while the UP Public Service Commission was of the view that the teaching experience could be counted only if it was in a Government School. This controversy was resolved and settled finally by this Court in Mohd. Altaf's case (supra) by holding that the Lecturers having three years teaching experience in CT/lt colleges in Training Colleges were also eligible, since the Rules nowhere prescribed that teaching experience should be that of a teacher in Government College or aided or unaided Government College or institution. Further, it was observed that teaching experience may be from any Higher Secondary School or High School or from an institute having Intermediate or Higher Classes. Having laid down the law, the UPPSC was directed to implement and carry out the directions of the High Court and prepare a list of eligible teachers for being appointed to the post advertised within a stipulated period. After the list was prepared in accordance with the directions given by this Court on March 14, 2001, the appeals came up for hearing and disposed of by a final order made on 20th February, 2002 and in the concluding paragraph of the order, it is said: lastly, it is clarified that the directions issued by this Court on 10. 1. 2001 as well as today would be implemented in favour of all the eligible candidates.;